Pucks_and_Pols wrote:To me this is terrifying. Seems like they are giving the George Zimmerman's of the world a shotgun, some target practice, and a badge to go forth and wreak havoc. The more mall cops, neighborhood watchers, and "Armed Citizens Brigades" we have marching around our streets with firearms, the LESS safe I will feel.

Where are you getting this? The main drive of this group is to arm residents of high-crime cities. If I was stuck living in one of the many cesspools in Chicago, where the level of violent crime is beyond belief, you can bet I would probably want to be armed.

I don't see anything about "armed citizens brigades", neighborhood watchers, or any of the other alarmist stuff you are posting above. The primary drive of this campaign seems to be training folks on how to safely and effectively defend their home in high crime areas. What's wrong with that?

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:To me this is terrifying. Seems like they are giving the George Zimmerman's of the world a shotgun, some target practice, and a badge to go forth and wreak havoc. The more mall cops, neighborhood watchers, and "Armed Citizens Brigades" we have marching around our streets with firearms, the LESS safe I will feel.

Where are you getting this? The main drive of this group is to arm residents of high-crime cities. If I was stuck living in one of the many cesspools in Chicago, where the level of violent crime is beyond belief, you can bet I would probably want to be armed.

I don't see anything about "armed citizens brigades", neighborhood watchers, or any of the other alarmist stuff you are posting above. The primary drive of this campaign seems to be training folks on how to safely and effectively defend their home in high crime areas. What's wrong with that?

Maybe it sounds counter-intuitive, but if “I was stuck living in one of the many cesspools in Chicago, where the level of violent crime is beyond belief” I would actually be much less inclined to arm myself.Assuming I am not involved in any criminal enterprise myself, there would obviously be a chance that I could be shot in some mistaken identity or crossfire type situation. But I do not feel that having a gun of my own would increase my chances of surviving such an occurrence significantly. The other situation I could see violence happening to me would be a robbery of my person or my property. When being robbed at gunpoint, I would actually rather not get involved in a gunfight over whatever it is the person robbing me wants. No property of mine (basing this on what I currently own) would be worth me dying for. I think the odds of me being shot in the process of being robbed would go up significantly if both myself and the robber were armed. I would be increasing my odds of stopping him from getting what he wanted, but would also be increasing the odds of me getting shot. That is not a tradeoff I would be willing to make. Hell, I would put up a sign in my front yard, “take what you want, just don’t shoot me.” It certainly wouldn’t be an ideal way to live, but I would take it over the alternative.

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:To me this is terrifying. Seems like they are giving the George Zimmerman's of the world a shotgun, some target practice, and a badge to go forth and wreak havoc. The more mall cops, neighborhood watchers, and "Armed Citizens Brigades" we have marching around our streets with firearms, the LESS safe I will feel.

Where are you getting this? The main drive of this group is to arm residents of high-crime cities. If I was stuck living in one of the many cesspools in Chicago, where the level of violent crime is beyond belief, you can bet I would probably want to be armed.

I don't see anything about "armed citizens brigades", neighborhood watchers, or any of the other alarmist stuff you are posting above. The primary drive of this campaign seems to be training folks on how to safely and effectively defend their home in high crime areas. What's wrong with that?

Maybe it sounds counter-intuitive, but if “I was stuck living in one of the many cesspools in Chicago, where the level of violent crime is beyond belief” I would actually be much less inclined to arm myself.Assuming I am not involved in any criminal enterprise myself, there would obviously be a chance that I could be shot in some mistaken identity or crossfire type situation. But I do not feel that having a gun of my own would increase my chances of surviving such an occurrence significantly. The other situation I could see violence happening to me would be a robbery of my person or my property. When being robbed at gunpoint, I would actually rather not get involved in a gunfight over whatever it is the person robbing me wants. No property of mine (basing this on what I currently own) would be worth me dying for. I think the odds of me being shot in the process of being robbed would go up significantly if both myself and the robber were armed. I would be increasing my odds of stopping him from getting what he wanted, but would also be increasing the odds of me getting shot. That is not a tradeoff I would be willing to make. Hell, I would put up a sign in my front yard, “take what you want, just don’t shoot me.” It certainly wouldn’t be an ideal way to live, but I would take it over the alternative.

Realize its a joke, but for honesty's sake I reside in a low rent apartment complex in a sleepy corner of suburbia. Probably less of a chance of me being robbed here then hitting the lottery. When I did live in a slightly more urban setting in college I kept my meager spare cash in the back of a massive old philosophy text book. Figured it would be the absolute last target of someone with the mentality to break into my place.

The Armed Citizen Project, a nonprofit group that arms residents living in high-crime cities, reportedly hopes to put shotguns in the hands of residents living in Chicago.

The group is currently arming residents in the Houston and Tuscon areas, but made headlines after the National Rifle Association’s convention in Houston this weekend when they announced hoped for expansion into more than 15 cities, including Chicago, according to DNAinfo.com.

The group’s mission is to arm law-abiding citizens and train them in safety, legal, and tactical measures, according to ACP’s website. All participants who to receive a weapon and take the training program will receive a shotgun, for free.

A while back, I got a notice that I had been selected to participate in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which asks dozens of breathtakingly intrusive questions (you can see a sample form here: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads ... uest13.pdf). I put down that one person lived at my address and sent the rest of the form back blank. Apparently, a census taker came to my home today. We’ll see where this does, as there is no way in heck I’m answering those questions.

i saw on the news scroll bar tonight that the heritage foundation came up with an estimate that providing a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country would cost taxpayers 6.3 trillion dollars. that number seems beyond absurd to me, i'd like to see the math behind it, but all i got was the headline blurb.

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:i saw on the news scroll bar tonight that the heritage foundation came up with an estimate that providing a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country would cost taxpayers 6.3 trillion dollars. that number seems beyond absurd to me, i'd like to see the math behind it, but all i got was the headline blurb.

It's a load of crap because most of the cost is the same if nothing is done.

I'd like to see three numbers, 1) the cost of doing nothing, 2) the cost of the proposed plan and C) the cost of actively rounding up everyone here illegally and deporting.

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:i saw on the news scroll bar tonight that the heritage foundation came up with an estimate that providing a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country would cost taxpayers 6.3 trillion dollars. that number seems beyond absurd to me, i'd like to see the math behind it, but all i got was the headline blurb.

On a 50-year timeline without taking into account the likelihood that many of the worst-case scenario estimates that went into the calculation would normalize over time.

For example, most illegal immigrants average about a 10th grade education. That implies depressed wages over the course of a working lifetime. But the Heritage study does not factor that many of these illegal immigrants only go so far because their educational options beyond that are often limited, and that removing the barriers to such advancement would - over time - lead to more children of illegals going further in school and getting better paying jobs, paying more in taxes, etc.

Regardless, the notion that anything can be accurately modeled on a fifty year scale is patently stupid.

DelPen wrote:I'd like to see three numbers, 1) the cost of doing nothing, 2) the cost of the proposed plan and C) the cost of actively rounding up everyone here illegally and deporting.

Whichever one costs less go with it.

Well, the cost of doing nothing means we continue with roughly a 1:1 trade-off in cost vs benefit. If we do either of the other two things, the cost will rise - most precipitously in option #3.

Again, when these debates come up I feel compelled to clarify..... I am neither pro-illegal immigration nor anti-illegal immigration. I am, however, staunchly pro-being able to afford artichokes and strawberries, and going out to restaurants and staying in hotels every now and then.

ExPatriatePen wrote:

Gaucho wrote:We are one year away from global riots according to complex systems theorists:

Well, i'm not a 'prepper' but it doesn't seem horribly far fetched for me.

To be perfectly honest, the biggest reason why I want a gun is because I'm more worried about SHTF scenarios than I am defending my home against a garden variety intruder. Given the fairly recent history of the area where I live, the danger of rioting and looting isn't really a madcap notion; the police HQ during the '92 riots was five blocks from my old apartment, and my current house is 2 miles from the epicenter of the '94 quake in Northridge.

tifosi77 wrote:Again, when these debates come up I feel compelled to clarify..... I am neither pro-illegal immigration nor anti-illegal immigration. I am, however, staunchly pro-being able to afford artichokes and strawberries, and going out to restaurants and staying in hotels every now and then.

Me? I don't know why we pass laws that we have no intention of enforcing. I also know the the strongest anti-immigration folks I know are those that have gone through the legal immigration process themselves. I had a Database analyst from the Phillipines who worked for me a few years back. (His wife was a nurse), they spent 20-25K to immigrate legally. He was one of my best performers. He was a quiet guy, but would actually ask that the subject be changed because he felt so strongly about it.

tifosi77 wrote:

ExPatriatePen wrote:

Gaucho wrote:We are one year away from global riots according to complex systems theorists:

Well, i'm not a 'prepper' but it doesn't seem horribly far fetched for me.

To be perfectly honest, the biggest reason why I want a gun is because I'm more worried about SHTF scenarios than I am defending my home against a garden variety intruder. Given the fairly recent history of the area where I live, the danger of rioting and looting isn't really a madcap notion; the police HQ during the '92 riots was five blocks from my old apartment, and my current house is 2 miles from the epicenter of the '94 quake in Northridge.

LA is definitely one of the areas I'd not want to live in if class warfare broke out. Long Island (Queens/Brooklyn/Nassau) is another.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told a committee hearing that a Pentagon report to be released later Tuesday reportedly estimates that, on average, there are more than 70 sexual assaults involving military personnel every day.